+Članak 82. Usklađeni UI sustavi koji predstavljaju rizik
---+Članak 82. 1.
---+Članak 82. 2.
---+Članak 82. 3.
---+Članak 82. 4.
---+Članak 82. 5.

Članak 82. Usklađeni UI sustavi koji predstavljaju rizik

-

1. Pregled

,
Članak 82. 1.
Ako tijelo za nadzor tržišta države članice nakon provedene evaluacije na temelju članka 79. i savjetovanja s relevantnim nacionalnim tijelom javne vlasti iz članka 77. stavka 1. zaključi da visokorizični UI sustav, iako je u skladu s ovom Uredbom, ipak predstavlja rizik za zdravlje ili sigurnost osoba, za temeljna prava ili za druge aspekte zaštite javnog interesa, od relevantnog operatera zahtijeva da bez nepotrebne odgode i u roku koji ono može propisati poduzme sve odgovarajuće mjere kako bi se osiguralo da dotični UI sustav, kada bude stavljen na tržište ili u upotrebu, više ne predstavlja taj rizik.
Članak 82. 2.
Dobavljač ili drugi relevantni operater osigurava da se u roku koji je propisalo tijelo za nadzor tržišta države članice iz stavka 1. poduzmu korektivne mjere u pogledu dotičnih UI sustava koje je stavio na raspolaganje na tržištu Unije.
Članak 82. 3.
Države članice odmah obavješćuju Komisiju i druge države članice o zaključku na temelju stavka 1. Te informacije uključuju sve dostupne pojedinosti, a osobito podatke potrebne za identifikaciju dotičnog UI sustava, podrijetlo i lanac opskrbe tog UI sustava, prirodu s njime povezanog rizika te prirodu i trajanje poduzetih nacionalnih mjera.
Članak 82. 4.
Komisija bez nepotrebne odgode započinje savjetovanje s dotičnim državama članicama i relevantnim operaterima te provodi evaluaciju poduzetih nacionalnih mjera. Na temelju rezultata te evaluacije Komisija odlučuje je li mjera opravdana i prema potrebi predlaže druge odgovarajuće mjere.
Članak 82. 5.
Komisija svoju odluku odmah priopćuje dotičnim državama članicama i relevantnim operaterima. Komisija o njoj obavješćuje i druge države članice.

1.1 Reference

1.2 Utvrđeni zahtjevi

1.3 Povezani standardi

2. Utvrđeni zahtjevi

Zahtjevi

3. Povezani standardi

Standardi
SCF Non-Conformity Corrective Action

Description

Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet)
∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking
∙ Management review of open findings

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Formal corrective action plan process
∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation
∙ Management review of open findings

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Enterprise corrective action management program
∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking
∙ Executive reporting on open findings

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management
∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows
∙ Board-level reporting on material findings

SCR-CMM

Level 0 Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 Performed Informally

Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.

Level 3 Well Defined

Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.

Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.